Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama Claims Executive Privilege W Fast & Furious  
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/

Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over the Fast & Furious scandal. Wow. Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh9TD6Nc&feature=youtu.be

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/vie...-executive-privilege-Fast-Furious-

Quote:
"The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions," Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a statement released Wednesday shortly after the president's move. "How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it's never repeated again."

This is HUGE. Grassley nails it—in essence, if Obama is trying to cover for Holder by inappropriately applying EP, then he’s going to get spanked. But if he DOES know about it—and crimes were committed—Obama becomes instantly culpable. It’s not documented that Holder has lied to the Issa committee twice as well as retracting multiple statements after longer periods of time. Moreover, think about this: Executive Privilege has been determined, by SCOTUS, to ONLY apply to the president individually. And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683


Quote:
{The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and non-diplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.}

So is Obama saying he knew about it? That would be the only reason to claim EP if the claim is legitimate (which it’s not) since EP doesn’t extend to breaking the law. For that Executive Immunity would have to be claimed. One thing’s for certain: Holder’s stonewalling will come to an end, one way or another. And it may take down this corrupt administration. Except unlike past incidents (and the left’s favorite pillar, that being Watergate), we have a dead body this time. Brian Terry deserves justice.

And this country deserves better.

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Moreover, think about this: Executive Privilege has been determined, by SCOTUS, to ONLY apply to the president individually. And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry. In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues. At least Fast and Furious dealt with border security.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Except unlike past incidents (and the left%u2019s favorite pillar, that being Watergate), we have a dead body this time.

GWB also invoked EP in the investigation into the death of Pat Tillman. I'm assuming he had a body.

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress%u2026

Of course, because he was in Congress at the time. People change when they get to the White House - that's nothing new, and Obama has certainly shown that the optimism that was many felt about him was unwarranted. But battles over executive privilege are nothing new either, and this just seems like one of those cases of "it's not our guy who's doing it, so let's get outraged."

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Every president has invoked it--Bush 43 6 times, Clinton 12, EVERY POTUS has.

But there's a marked difference in one president doing it to cover something about how Federal judges were fired and another when there's a BODY COUNT.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
and this just seems like one of those cases of "it's not our guy who's doing it, so let's get outraged."

Tell the family of Brian Terry that.

Tell the family of Jaime Zapata that.

Tell the families of the hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens who've been killed as a result of illegal gun-running.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
few others

?? Few ?? I thought more or less it was all.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
GWB also invoked EP in the investigation into the death of Pat Tillman. I'm assuming he had a body.


That still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many. I'm sure that includes the parents, who should know the real truth.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Of course, because he was in Congress at the time.

Perspective is always a derivative of the seat you happen to have at any given time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry.

Did those discussions lead to the deaths of Americans? Any crime involved? In this case, there was a crime - guns were officially permitted to "walk" where normally they would have been stopped by currently valid gun control laws, and as a result one federal officer and at least 100 Mexican nationals are dead.

We want to know who approved the operation.

You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues.

And the firing of the judges was in no way illegal, nor did it leave a trail of bodies.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineJetsgo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3086 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB

Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP. I hope SCOTUS slaps this back in his face.



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2750 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Oh wait...Bush did it...Nice that Obama changed his mind on another thing he was against during the Bush admin. This guy is joke and he and Holder need to be impeached.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

But it’s not only a political condition to deny wrongdoing—regardless of party—but it is a specifically pervasive condition with this Narcissist in Chief…he’s pathologically unable to admit wrong. It’s his nature: Obama believes what he’s doing is right. And know why? Because he, as well as Holder and Hillary (I’ll dig up the quote and link), have said that we need to ban assault weapons because of the drug trade. With the Mexican cartels going crazy, all the violence and rampant murders, the goal from the beginning was to enact another assault on the Second Amendment.

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 5):
Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP. I hope SCOTUS slaps this back in his face.

Precisely right---another display of Bush Derangement Syndrome in action. I concur with Dreadnought that Bush was a terrible president, but this far surpasses that.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1933 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Perspective is always a derivative of the seat you happen to have at any given time.

   100% true.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly.

I don't believe that for a second. If either one of them admitted fault, they surely would have been crucified. Whoever is responsible knows this, and that's why they're backed into the corner they're in now. A lie begets a lie begets a lie, until the liar is caught, whomever that may be.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 6):
he and Holder need to be impeached.

We get you don't like Obama, that's fair, but if you believe this is an impeachable offense, then we would have seen a whole lot more impeachments than just good ol' Bill over the past century.

Quoting slider (Reply 7):
assault weapons
Quoting slider (Reply 7):
another assault on the Second Amendment

Sorry to stray off topic, but is there really ANY reason to possess an assault weapon unless you're serving in the military or part of a SWAT team?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry."

Like the previous admin said about Iraq?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8798 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Almost 1,300 pages of documents released and still Eric Holder get the eneditable contempt of congress.

It seems that the Republicans care more about show trials and contempt for their enemies, elected and voting than giving a damn about jobs, infrastructure, traditional bipartisan themes and the well being of this country.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 5):
Is that all you can muster up? GWB did it? Does that somehow excuse Obama? GWB was a terrible president, but that does not excuse Obama's blatant misuse of EP.

If I had wanted to excuse Obama, would I have said:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
People change when they get to the White House - that's nothing new, and Obama has certainly shown that the optimism that was many felt about him was unwarranted.

My point was only that while you might get the impression from the OP that invoking executive privilege on this sort of thing is a wholly unprecedented thing, it's not, and, like many things in politics, it's something that people only get irritated about when it's the other side that's doing it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Did those discussions lead to the deaths of Americans? Any crime involved?

Well, we don't know, do we? But if you think there was no corruption, at the very least, going on behind those closed doors, I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):

And the firing of the judges was in no way illegal

Well, if it wasn't illegal, then there's no reason not to testify before Congress, is there?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
You know, the stupid thing here is that if, at the very beginning when the story first broke, Holder, Obama or whoever it was who gave the OK had owned up, said, "We screwed up. I'm sorry.", then this whole issue would have gone away pretty quickly. Nobody is expected to be perfect. But the cover-up - that's what gets under everyone's noses.

Yup. I think the program was developed with the best of intentions, I think it was a very flawed idea that left too many opportunities for things to go wrong, and that it blew up in people's faces. But that doesn't make it illegal.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
I seem to recall GWB using it to prevent Cheney, Rove, Miers and few others from testifying before Congress. In Cheney's case, it was about meetings with members of the energy industry. In the cases of Rove and Miers, it related to firings of federal judges. Those certainly aren't military, diplomatic or sensitive national security issues.

The Cheney use of EP is the most interesting as we may well be paying for the decisions made in that meeting.

I would also love to know if Halliburton was in EP Protected meetings with Cheney as Old Dick was building the case for the invasion of Iraq. If the GOP pushes down EP far enough on the Holder issue then the Democrats will be free to start investigations into this on the day they get a majority in the House.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 6):
This guy is joke and he and Holder need to be impeached.

Go ahead and go after Holder. Every step taken by the GOP will set new standards for future GOP Presidents to live with.

The comments Mir made in Reply 1 show just how important EP has been to the GOP in the past, and will be in the future. That is a pretty hefty, long term cost to pay for bit of political games this week.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over the Fast & Furious scandal. Wow. Nevermind that then-candidate Obama decried the use of Executive Privilege to hide from Congress…

You can't just claim that it's "executive privilege." that's just corrupt dictatorship, especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

I have a feeling that if Obama is found to be covering up something, he will get impeached. I'm sick and tired of his crap already.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
I don't believe that for a second. If either one of them admitted fault, they surely would have been crucified. Whoever is responsible knows this, and that's why they're backed into the corner they're in now. A lie begets a lie begets a lie, until the liar is caught, whomever that may be.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime. I agree that there would have been a lot of attempts at crucifying whoever took responsibility, but that will likely happen anyway, and now it'll be a bigger deal, whatever comes out of it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
And it has been interpreted to only apply to military, diplomatic, and sensitive national security issues, of which this is none of them.

Actually, this is all three of those. There is another soverign nation involved (I know that means nothing to the 'let's invade them and lie about it' crowd) so that brings up diplomatic and national security issues. In some states, the military is involved in border security. Plus, if any administraion ever hopes to launch any other undercover missions for any reason, they need to keep names secret.

Unlike Valarie Plame.

Quoting slider (Reply 7):
It’s his nature: Obama believes what he’s doing is right.

That same tired excuse was used for GWB pulling out of Afghanistan and doubling down on Iraq. So, it is okay for the rich white guy with the (R) behind his name, but not the self-supporting black guy with the (D) behind his name. We know. We get it. Money and privilige trumps working class. We get it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
The comments Mir made in Reply 1 show just how important EP has been to the GOP in the past, and will be in the future. That is a pretty hefty, long term cost to pay for bit of political games this week.

Ah, leave it to good old Ken to play the partisan. Hey, I agree with you on the Cheney thing...I still don't know fully what they didn't want to disclose nor understand the rationale for having invoked it. But the context of this is MUCH different from merely using it to cover discussions made about firing federal judges.

Here's a good little overview on modern use of EP:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...ivilege-in-recent-history-20120620

Rather bipartisan invocation of it, isn't it? And for potentially damnable perceived transgressions right?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ecutive-privilege-shannen-w-coffin

A little additional insight into how EP works above as well. It's important to know the 2 primary means of using it and WHY they're used. Gives context. You know, context is what helps is intellectually differentiate between the R and D behind the name, right?  

As one commenter put it:

Quote:
The most salient and recent precedents on executive privilege are the D.C. Circuit's rulings in the 1997 Espy case (involving Clinton's Agriculture Secretary) and the 2004 Judicial Watch case (involving Clinton's 2000 pardons). Under these precedents, as you suggest, there are two possible ways a President can assert executive privilege, either (a) the "deliberative process" privilege; or (b) the "presidential communications" privilege. President Obama has not invoked the latter, so what matters is what these cases say about the "deliberative process" privilege.

Importantly, under Espy, "where there is reason to believe the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, the deliberative process privilege is routinely denied on the grounds that shielding internal governmental deliberations in this context does not serve the public interest in honest, effective government." Put differently, again by Espy, the privilege "disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred." That threshold has clearly been met in Fast and Furious.

The context here in which the claim of executive privilege has been invoked undermines the integrity of the claim. By invoking executive privilege to specifically cover the administration's response to an investigation into its conduct eviscerates the underlying rationale for the privilege to exist.

So, shall we talk about context some more?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
You can't just claim that it's "executive privilege." that's just corrupt dictatorship, especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

I have a feeling that if Obama is found to be covering up something, he will get impeached. I'm sick and tired of his crap already.

I agree with you about the corruption part. This goes FAR beyond anything Tricky Dick did. As I said before, there was no body count in Watergate.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1933 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
The cover-up is always worse than the crime. I agree that there would have been a lot of attempts at crucifying whoever took responsibility, but that will likely happen anyway, and now it'll be a bigger deal, whatever comes out of it.

I totally agree with that. I was just pointing out that it wouldn't have been as peachy as suggested had they admitted to it early on. There's no such thing as leniency when it comes to Blue vs. Red.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Hey, I agree with you on the Cheney thing...I still don't know fully what they didn't want to disclose nor understand the rationale for having invoked it. But the context of this is MUCH different from merely using it to cover discussions made about firing federal judges.

The situation with Cheney was with respect to him having private interests in Haliburton, was it not? If so, it can be argued that there is a body count attached to that one as well.

I mostly agree with your Watergate remark, although a gross misappropriation of one's power (the highest power in the land, no less) is still a huge injustice whether someone dies as a result or not.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
I mostly agree with your Watergate remark, although a gross misappropriation of one's power (the highest power in the land, no less) is still a huge injustice whether someone dies as a result or not.

I would also add that beyond the fact that we have fatalities involved in Fast & Furious, we also have what is at the least gross incompetence by the adminstration since they had ZERO controls in place to track the guns shipped to Mexico and at the worst a deliberate action to put our agents in harm's way in doing so. They had to relinquish their weapons once crossing over into Mexico and were ambushed.

The mainstream old media has done its best to ignore this story--another deliberate abdication of their duties as govt watchdog--but now? This story isn't going away. Nor should it. And if I were Romney--speaking as an opponent of Obama and not as a repub or conservative--I would absolutely hammer away on this.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Well, we don't know, do we?

Just like we don't know about all the discussions that led to invading Iraq. We do know some, especially from reading Woodward's book.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
that's just corrupt dictatorship

Not really. It is simply two branches of government with equal power and one (the legislative) trying to get an hand over the "opposition", which is the President.

The problems with political power struggles is that they set new standards for the future - and generally it is a lower standard.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
especially when Americans are getting killed from our own Americans.

Such as more Americans killed in Iraq than 9/11? We never have learned the whole truth on that one.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
Unlike Valarie Plame.

ANother Cheney FUBAR. Or is simply because he is just a nasty little man missing in integrity?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
That same tired excuse was used for GWB pulling out of Afghanistan and doubling down on Iraq.

Bush moved troops to Iraq because he eventually discovered he was taken to the cleaners on the WMD bit and was totally misled on how military operations would go in Iraq.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Ah, leave it to good old Ken to play the partisan.

LOL! And I thought I was being non-partisan by noting that both sides will lose in the future with lower standards.

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
Here's a good little overview on modern use of EP:

Nice, easy to understand article.

The difficult part is to really identifying what should be held under EP. Cheney lowered the standards with his visit from the oil men. A list of attendees should be protected? Guess so. :-i

Quoting slider (Reply 18):
I would also add that beyond the fact that we have fatalities involved in Fast & Furious, we also have what is at the least gross incompetence by the adminstration since they had ZERO controls in place to track the guns shipped to Mexico and at the worst a deliberate action to put our agents in harm's way in doing so.

Sort of like the previous administration when they had similar programs? I don't think the GOP really wants the public to know the full range of similar programs that were run under Bush/Cheney.

Don't push too hard for what will only be the "latest" program when you have the risks of previous programs becoming public.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Such as more Americans killed in Iraq than 9/11? We never have learned the whole truth on that one.

Ok This is what I tell everybody when they asked why we went to Iraq:

We led a coalition and was given a UN Security Council Resolution which basically TOLD us to go to Iraq. We just stayed there a little too long because of the insurgency.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20):
Ok This is what I tell everybody when they asked why we went to Iraq:

We led a coalition and was given a UN Security Council Resolution which basically TOLD us to go to Iraq.

Well, you're incorrect. Nobody was ever told to go into Iraq. There was a resolution that, as the Bush Administration (and others in the coalition) decided to interpret it, authorized an invasion (but did not require one). You can find other governments that drew different interpretations.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13197 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

The 'Fast & Furious' program was a volatile mix of the drug wars, our obscene demand for drugs, our absolutism as to 2nd Amendment gun 'rights', a classic example of the horrible decisions government bureaucracies can make, our relations with Mexico, and most of all - money. Many 1000's of important documents have been produced, AG Holder and others have testified giving much important information, some ATF persons fired or forced into retirement

But all that does not satisfy a number of Republicans who are seeking any and all weaknesses to explode upon the Obama administration. I also think they need a distraction issue, to divert attention from their weaknesses and lack of policies rather than offer something of substance.

While some fears exist that President Obama is trying to cover his and Holder's asses, some of the remaining information Republicans want disclosed is not legal to disclose, like Grand Jury testimony. Discussions by the AG and the President may be privileged for sound reasons. Some further information could ruin ongoing prosecutions as well as put LEO's, ATF agents and Mexican officials all at risk of death. Those may be factors that make it right to use the extreme of using Executive Privilege.


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 16):
I agree with you about the corruption part. This goes FAR beyond anything Tricky Dick did. As I said before, there was no body count in Watergate.

Uni-vision and Calderon were on Obama early on and Obama denied any knowledge. Trying to use executive privilege would prove that not to be true and indicates White house involvement.

Considering the number of deaths involved in Mexico attributed to the Mexican Cartels that were being armed by the present administration, I would suspect some serious backlash coming from Mexico and the Mexican-American community as well. They were somewhat vocal early on.

The comment I heard was that from what is known at this point, Fast and Furious is going to make Watergate look like Motel 6.

Okie


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
Tell the family of Brian Terry that.

I thought the GOP and NRA standard line was "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Yet here guns kill people?

The GOP are cynically and hypocritically using Terry's murder for political muck raking instead of using it rally support around fixing the incredibly lax gun laws in the US in general and Texas in particular that responsible for literally millions of deaths.

DOJ has admitted the operation was a huge mistake, and the principals involved have either resigned or have been reassigned.

Last night the GOP were given a chance to back off but that's not what they are after, they simply are after political points.

Today they got their pure party line vote on their contempt motion, but in the end it will amount to nothing.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
but not the self-supporting black guy with the (D) behind his name.

Why are liberals always bringing up race in political threads? Stop race baiting. It's not cute, and derails the thread.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

So, Obama is using executive privelege. It's been used in the past and it will be used in the future.

But, by using executive he is admitting that he knew about Fast and Furious, yet the administration has denied it in the past.

%u201CThe President has made clear that he did not know about or authorize this operation,%u201D

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-de...a-knew-fast-furious-142542490.html

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 10):
Almost 1,300 pages of documents released and still Eric Holder get the eneditable contempt of congress.

Actually, I believe over 7,600 documents were provided, some completely redacted...over 100,000 were requested. Can't find a link referring to either number. But, I'll look around tomorrow.

For the legal types here:
Under the concept of privlege, as soon as documents were produced, wasn't the privilege waived? Also, since President Obama has repeatedly denied knowledge of Fast and Furious, can he exert executive privilege?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
Sorry to stray off topic, but is there really ANY reason to possess an assault weapon unless you're serving in the military or part of a SWAT team?

Start a new topic and we'll talk.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 25):
Also, since President Obama has repeatedly denied knowledge of Fast and Furious, can he exert executive privilege?

He can in order to grant members of his Administration immunity from the requirement to testify before Congress. The privilege extends to the executive branch, not just the president. The courts can overrule that, of course, and say that the privilege isn't valid in a certain circumstance, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this go to the judiciary for review.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 721 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):

I think you misquoted. That was Fr8mech's post, not mine.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2935 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
He can in order to grant members of his Administration immunity from the requirement to testify before Congress. The privilege extends to the executive branch, not just the president. The courts can overrule that, of course, and say that the privilege isn't valid in a certain circumstance, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this go to the judiciary for review.

The precedent quoted in the OP is pretty clear - if this goes to the USSC this immunity will be slapped down. But the point of this exercise is to push it off until after this election. If it comes out in 2013 or later that Holder or even Obama personally gave the go-ahead for Fast & Furious, and then lied through their teeth about it, it won't matter. Lying to Congress under oath is no longer an impeachable crime (since Clinton), and lying to the public doesn't matter if you no longer have to face reelection.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 28):
I think you misquoted. That was Fr8mech's post, not mine.

Well, looks like I picked a whole bouquet of oopsy-daisies....   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
But the point of this exercise is to push it off until after this election.

Obama would hardly be the first politician (or person) in the history of this country to try and use the timing of the legal system to his advantage.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Lying to Congress under oath is no longer an impeachable crime (since Clinton)

The fact that Clinton wasn't convicted doesn't mean that Obama couldn't go through the same process with a different result.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
lying to the public doesn't matter if you no longer have to face reelection.

It'll screw your party over, that's for sure. I strongly believe Al Gore wins in 2000 were it not for Clinton's shenanigans. That should be enough to give any two-term president pause if they're thinking about doing crazy stuff.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
Obama would hardly be the first politician (or person) in the history of this country to try and use the timing of the legal system to his advantage.

True, but rarely so blatantly. Hopefully the public will remember this in November (even though the MSM is desperately trying to downplay this).

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
The fact that Clinton wasn't convicted doesn't mean that Obama couldn't go through the same process with a different result.

Not necessarily true. Clinton got let off because lying about a blowjob - well, big deal. This is different. This is about the executive branch acting with gross incompetence, and trying to use executive privilege to hide it.

Obama and the rest of the administration has denied any knowledge of the gun running operation. Either Executive Privilege does not apply or they are directly involved and lied about it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
It'll screw your party over, that's for sure. I strongly believe Al Gore wins in 2000 were it not for Clinton's shenanigans. That should be enough to give any two-term president pause if they're thinking about doing crazy stuff.

You forget about the financial meltdown in 2000, when the NASDAQ lost two thirds of its value.and the Dow lost one third right before the election.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
Not necessarily true. Clinton got let off because lying about a blowjob - well, big deal. This is different.

If it's different, then that proves my point.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 25):
Why are liberals always bringing up race in political threads?

Because there was not this much hate from the right when the Democrat was white. Especially when the black guy's policies are in line with St. Ronnie Reagan.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20):
We led a coalition

Two countries is a coalition? Since when??

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
You forget about the financial meltdown in 2000, when the NASDAQ lost two thirds of its value.and the Dow lost one third right before the election.

How much value did people lose on their homes? Did banks have auto signers for mortgages?

Back to the *real* topic:

Since two countries are involved and possibly CIA agents who will be and have been undercover, Executive Privilege, in this case, probably is worth it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 33):
Two countries is a coalition? Since when??

Here you go: all of the countries that entered Iraq in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3680 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

'We're the Most Transparent and Ethical Administration in U.S. History'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXWTdTnhebs

Yeah right.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
You forget about the financial meltdown in 2000, when the NASDAQ lost two thirds of its value.and the Dow lost one third right before the election.

No , the Dow didn't.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%...s=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

The Nasdaq was toast, but not 2/3 rds down. but I think we can all agree that was one big bubble of tech falling over.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%...s=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
This is HUGE. Grassley nails it—in essence, if Obama is trying to cover for Holder by inappropriately applying EP, then he’s going to get spanked. But if he DOES know about it—and crimes were committed—Obama becomes instantly culpable.

No Grassley did not nail it. Obama can exert executive priveledge for the executive branch. Holder requested it in a letter.

Issa was briefed by Holder, but Issa wants documents to try and prove that the Administration knew and did something wrong. Mostly in the aftermatch of all the events. The incident that triggered this investigation occurred on Dec 14,2010 when Brian Terry was killed during a fire fight. the documents Issa wants are during the aftermath when everyone was trying to figure out what exactly happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

"Issa's committee is specifically seeking documents that show why the Department of Justice decided to withdraw as inaccurate a February 2011 letter sent to Congress that said top officials had only recently learned about Fast and Furious"


Basically the documents Issa wants are to know why the DOJ redacted a document that said top officials didn't know. The DOJ already claimed this was inaccurate.

This is nothing but a political which hunt for politics. They are using big words like contempt and honor to basically air the dirty laundry of documents that probably show a lot of confusion and scrambling to gather info in the aftermath of the incovering of such a poorly run operation.


I think Obama and Holder are correct to invoke Executive Privelidge here, and I think the GOP is really dumb to press the point, as they may be in power in the future and face the same situation.





Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
I thought the GOP and NRA standard line was "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

Yet here guns kill people?

  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):

Don't push too hard for what will only be the "latest" program when you have the risks of previous programs becoming public.

  

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
Tell the family of Brian Terry that.

Tell the family of Jaime Zapata that.

Tell the families of the hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens who've been killed as a result of illegal gun-running.

Don't make this into something it isn't. This isn't about the program itself. Which everyone has admitted was flawed.
This is about Issa going through a which hunt to see how much was known and how high up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20):
Ok This is what I tell everybody when they asked why we went to Iraq:

We led a coalition and was given a UN Security Council Resolution which basically TOLD us to go to Iraq. We just stayed there a little too long because of the insurgency.

   LOL. For starters I recommend you google 'curveball'.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):
But all that does not satisfy a number of Republicans who are seeking any and all weaknesses to explode upon the Obama administration. I also think they need a distraction issue, to divert attention from their weaknesses and lack of policies rather than offer something of substance.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
The GOP are cynically and hypocritically using Terry's murder for political muck raking instead of using it rally support around fixing the incredibly lax gun laws in the US in general and Texas in particular that responsible for literally millions of deaths.

I think the republicans also have a wider agenda of trying to get rid of the ATF and its associated regulations alltogether. To them it is probably just another example of 'big government'.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 34):
Here you go: all of the countries that entered Iraq in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-N..._Iraq

That includes humanitarian assistance/peacekeepers which hardly count as those who invaded.



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):
The 'Fast & Furious' program was a volatile mix of the drug wars, our obscene demand for drugs, our absolutism as to 2nd Amendment gun 'rights', a classic example of the horrible decisions government bureaucracies can make, our relations with Mexico, and most of all - money.

Excellent summary. Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

It does point out the issue that the right needs to be careful of - possible blowback because of their pro-gun stance.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):
I also think they need a distraction issue, to divert attention from their weaknesses and lack of policies rather than offer something of substance.

Yes, it's a pure old fashioned witch hunt.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):

While some fears exist that President Obama is trying to cover his and Holder's asses

I'm sure that's a large part of what is going on. I'm not sure why it even matters. No one is supporting the action. Heads have rolled. At some point both Holder and Obama were in the loop, and of course neither wants to be covered in muck, but to me that's a given, even if it fully or partially contradicts public statements.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 22):
some of the remaining information Republicans want disclosed is not legal to disclose, like Grand Jury testimony.

Good point.

Quoting okie (Reply 23):
Considering the number of deaths involved in Mexico attributed to the Mexican Cartels that were being armed by the present administration

So you are saying they'd be unarmed if it weren't for the present administration?

Or those assault rifles would be used for rodent control on a Texas ranch instead?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
But, by using executive he is admitting that he knew about Fast and Furious, yet the administration has denied it in the past.

And Clinton said he didn't get a blow job, yet he did get a blow job, and the world didn't end.

Meanwhile, things the GOP say they care about, like jobs and government spending, get pushed to the back pages.

But heck, let's indulge ourselves with a witch hunt, it's not like anything else important is going on...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Sort of like the previous administration when they had similar programs? I don't think the GOP really wants the public to know the full range of similar programs that were run under Bush/Cheney.

Hey, let's have that talk. How about Operation Wide Receiver.... And BTW, all such weapons were accounted for there. And no one was murdered with them.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 36):
This is nothing but a political which hunt for politics.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 36):
Don't make this into something it isn't.

It's a left end run (no pun intended) at the Second Amendment and perhaps the biggest example of the corruption in the most corrupt administration ever. And we have dead bodies.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 39):
It's a left end run (no pun intended) at the Second Amendment and perhaps the biggest example of the corruption in the most corrupt administration ever. And we have dead bodies.

they are not investigating the Dead bodies. the Contempt is over documents from after the operation ended. talk about corrupt. Issa stands at the top of the list.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 39):
It's a left end run (no pun intended) at the Second Amendment

So, I can't go buy a gun anymore?

BTW: the right promised when they were elected in 2010 they would give everyone jobs and reduce the deficit. Yet, there is still massive unemployment and the deficit is still out of control. And this is the priority?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 39):
And we have dead bodies.

Yes, the estimate is around 50,000 over the last decade.

It'd be nice if Congress got on with doing something about that, instead of fixating on the one body they hope to tie to Eric Holder and/or Barack Obama, but then they'd actually be doing their job.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
But heck, let's indulge ourselves with a witch hunt, it's not like anything else important is going on...


You mean like 'the War on Women'?

Are we allowed only go on Obama Administration sponsored witch hunts?

Hell, the idiot on MSNBC insinuated that this was a racial issue.

MSNBC host Christopher Matthews asked former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown whether House Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s treatment of Holder was “ethnic.”

Brown quickly said it was, prompting Matthews to comment that some Republican House members “talk down to the president and his friends.”


http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...20/race-threatens-weapon-campaign/

The issue here is that BATF ran an operation that allowed firearms, purchased by straw buyers, to move into Mexico. The Mexican authorities were never informed. The BATF lost track of the firearms soon after they went across the border. At least one BATF agent was murdered by someone using one of those firearms, not to mention or diminish the Mexicans that may have been murdered by people using those very weapons.

There are indications that the highest levels of the DoJ were in the loop and approved of the operation from inception to dissolution. The Holder DoJ has refused to release all the documents that could prove or disprove any connection between the DoJ and the BATF (as it pertains to the operation in question).

This investigation has been going on for months and months and months. Only now, that Rep. Issa has decided to bring contempt charges against Holder has the media decided it was time to pay attention. But, to give credit where credit is due...it was CBS that broke this story...in February 2011

Some random links that cover some of the story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/04/cb...her-over-fast-and-furious-scandal/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffre...gs-cbss-fast-and-furious-coverage-

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...t-furious-abc-nbc-place-heads-sand



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
But, by using executive he is admitting that he knew about Fast and Furious, yet the administration has denied it in the past.

Using EP is not an "admission" of anything. President use EP because there is an on-going battle between the Legislative & Executives. Lord Reagan, or is it Sir Ronny, used it, What really, really bad things does that say about him?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
I believe over 7,600 documents were provided, some completely redacted

That is over twice the size of the Health Reform Bill. How much is really needed?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
over 100,000 were requested.

And you think the GOPpies are going to read those 100,000 pages before the election? Right.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
Under the concept of privlege, as soon as documents were produced, wasn't the privilege waived?

For the page released. Redacted portions will either be classified above the Committee's Need To Know, or it can be protected by EP.

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this go to the judiciary for review.

I actually don't care, with the exception of the protection of the people in the field who have done nothing wrong.

But when looking at this type of program we ned to look at ALL of the programs, including under W.

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
I strongly believe Al Gore wins in 2000 were it not for Clinton's shenanigan

Gore won the popular vote, but American's votes don't count in a Presidential Election - only the Electoral College counts. Clearly a bad system that needs to be changed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
This is about the executive branch acting with gross incompetence, and trying to use executive privilege to hide it.

Would you say the exact same thing for the Republican Presidents use of EP?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
You forget about the financial meltdown in 2000, when the NASDAQ lost two thirds of its value.and the Dow lost one third right before the election.

Gore still won the vote. Bush got fewer votes than Gore. Only an antiquated system took the American Vote away.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
It'd be nice if Congress got on with doing something about that

Not going to happen. The GOP has an erection over this issue and it is lasting over 4 hours.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5654 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Using EP is not an "admission" of anything. President use EP because there is an on-going battle between the Legislative & Executives. Lord Reagan, or is it Sir Ronny, used it, What really, really bad things does that say about him?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, Ken. I just wondered why exert the privlege if you're not involved...The White House has denied involvement.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
That is over twice the size of the Health Reform Bill. How much is really needed?

As many documents as are required to find out what, if anything, was done illegally.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
You mean like 'the War on Women'?

Are we allowed only go on Obama Administration sponsored witch hunts?

What are you on about now? How is the fact that a bunch of men were having hearings to decide womens' health issues anything other than a fact?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
Hell, the idiot on MSNBC insinuated that this was a racial issue.

So you equate things mediots are doing to pander to their audience to things congressmen are doing that have nothing to do with their stated focus on improving the economy?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
The issue here is that BATF...

Yes, that's all been admitted to, there's no controversy about it, other than the GOP like to keep saying the same thing over and over to try to score political points.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, Ken. I just wondered why exert the privlege if you're not involved...The White House has denied involvement.

You know the answer - exerting EP is not an admission, it's an attempt to get the Congress to focus on things that of more importance. The Administration admits F&F was a total screw up. What's going on now is nothing more than political theater.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
As many documents as are required to find out what, if anything, was done illegally.

Which of course presumes there was something done illegally, otherwise there is no such document, and it's all a waste of time. Where have I heard that?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 37):
LOL. For starters I recommend you google 'curveball'.

Either way we went in, we initially had a lot of public support. I saw direct parallels to the Libyan war last year except there was more direct action taken by the Libyans in comparison.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 43):
You mean like 'the War on Women'?

Thank you liberal media for this "war."   



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 39):
Hey, let's have that talk. How about Operation Wide Receiver.... And BTW, all such weapons were accounted for there. And no one was murdered with them.

And how many convictions did Wide Reviever result in?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 47):
Either way we went in, we initially had a lot of public support.

Yes but most of that public support was based on distortions and lies, such as that there was a strong relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda for the purpose of attacking the USA/west.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

If you look at Bush's speeches, he always insisted that there IS WMDs in Iraq, not that there is LIKELY to be. Big difference, and I don't think I need to point out how many WMDs it turned out there actually were. Getting back to public support, just think about how Bush burned those who didn't support his war. A lot of anti-french sentiment was spread in the USA after Jaques Chirac opposed the US at the UN and refused to join in with the war. The 'Freedom Fries' happenings were a small part of it.



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 49, posted (2 years 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 39):
How about Operation Wide Receiver.... And BTW, all such weapons were accounted for there. And no one was murdered with them.

Actually, we lost track of most of those weapons as well. And they may have well been used to murder people. In fact, I'd say it's likely.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11796 posts, RR: 15
Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 16 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):That is over twice the size of the Health Reform Bill. How much is really needed?
As many documents as are required to find out what, if anything, was done illegally.

Seems like we know what happened. Seems like the right is just doing this in the run up to the election to make themselves look like they are doing something. Since they are not compromising on creating jobs or balancing the budget or anything useful.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 48):
And how many convictions did Wide Reviever result in?

I believe they have 6 convictions, one acquital, and two still on the run.

Quoting Mir (Reply 49):
Actually, we lost track of most of those weapons as well. And they may have well been used to murder people. In fact, I'd say it's likely.

Yes, which as I recall is why the operation was cancelled after a few months. The problem was that try as they might to track the guns, some were managing to disappear. I remember one report from 2007 of how the ATF was following a shipment of about 20 guns to the border, the ATF called up the Mexican police to get them to pick up the tail, but the Mexican police never showed up - there you go - guns lost.

But at least they tried to track them. Part of the Fast & Furious mess is that apparently some of the units assigned to trail the guns were intentionally pulled off of surveillance, apparently on orders from Washington. Hence the hunt for documentation.

And then you have CBS accusing the ATF of intentionally allowing the guns to walk in order to create an excuse for more gun control laws. Somehow I doubt that a GWB-appointee would do that.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...r-gun-regulations/?tag=re1.channel



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
But at least they tried to track them. Part of the Fast & Furious mess is that apparently some of the units assigned to trail the guns were intentionally pulled off of surveillance, apparently on orders from Washington. Hence the hunt for documentation.

No. Tthe documentation Issa and his whitch hunters want is from AFTER the program was shut down. They already have the documents that would prove this, if it was ever communicated prior to the operation being shut down.

     

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
Somehow I doubt that a GWB-appointee would do that.

Another misconception. You point to an Apointee. Apointee's aren't the career ATF agents that are running the operations.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 52):
No. Tthe documentation Issa and his whitch hunters want is from AFTER the program was shut down. They already have the documents that would prove this, if it was ever communicated prior to the operation being shut down.

They are looking for documents which say, "This is what we are going to say, but THIS is what really happened".

Quoting casinterest (Reply 52):
Another misconception. You point to an Apointee. Apointee's aren't the career ATF agents that are running the operations.

The ATF and all other government agencies are headed by political appointees (i.e. politicians choose them). The current head of the ATF is a lawyer and former advisor of Holder. He is no law enforcement experience (apart from being a prosecutor - but that's not the same thing as being a career cop/FBI/ATF agent). Government agencies don't choose their own leaders.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 51):
But at least they tried to track them.

There are accounts that cast some serious doubt about how seriously the ATF took the task of tracking them. I'm seeing quite a lot of parallels between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. Not that that justifies either of them, of course.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4792 posts, RR: 3
Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 2337 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
They are looking for documents which say, "This is what we are going to say, but THIS is what really happened".

If it isn't in the documents from Prior, then there was never an official edict. Anything after the fact is everyone sorting out the mess. Your statement confirms a witch hunt.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
The ATF and all other government agencies are headed by political appointees (i.e. politicians choose them). The current head of the ATF is a lawyer and former advisor of Holder. He is no law enforcement experience (apart from being a prosecutor - but that's not the same thing as being a career cop/FBI/ATF agent). Government agencies don't choose their own leaders.

Correct, but they aren't the ones running the operations.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 9 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I just wondered why exert the privlege if you're not involved...The White House has denied involvement.

EP has, in the past, been used by one President to maintain the separation of powers when it was his predecessor who was being reviewed. I believe it was Clinton using it to protect EP on an issue dating back to the Bush Years.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
As many documents as are required to find out what, if anything, was done illegally.

So we need to start with 10,000 pages of documents from the origination of the idiots program - back in the days of DuffelButt?

This was originally a Bush/Cheney Program - remember? Maybe it is best that EP is used for any part of the programs to protect undercover agents. Of course Little Dick Cheney wasn't concerned about that when it didn't suit him.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
How is the fact that a bunch of men were having hearings to decide womens' health issues anything other than a fact?

Yep, I saw that a woman legislator in some backwater state was banished for using the word "vagina". The Republicans wanted her gone until they could figure out what it was.

There is nothing dumber than a group of men working so hard to determine what women can and cannot do. I guess the only way to put any real pressure on these dorks is to get the hookers in the Capital to charge them double.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
They are looking for documents which say, "This is what we are going to say, but THIS is what really happened".

Sounds like something that would be an EP issue for every President during my lifetime. The Cheney meeting with fellow oil barons would be one, as would all those WMD BS sessions before the start of the Oil War.

Anything as little as a pathetic program that has been going on for 2 administrations is looking pretty trivial when you look at the EP issues from W's years.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 57, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Quoting slider (Thread starter):
Obama Claims Executive Privilege W Fast & Furious
Mitt Romney, apparently struggling with diaper rash

Yet now we read:

Quote:

What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States.

How are you going to do anything in one day? Hmm, could it be via executive order?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 58, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
How are you going to do anything in one day? Hmm, could it be via executive order?

Just like Obama gave Obamacare waivers to his reelection fund donators - a blanket waiver for everyone. Surely that is fair, don't you think? Or should companies and Unions who donate to the right cause get special favors?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 59, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
Surely that is fair, don't you think?

Fair? No, not at all.

Care to address the hypocrisy of Romney planning to use executive orders after railing against them in the F&F case?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
Or should companies and Unions who donate to the right cause get special favors?

Considering that the GOP SuperPAC is going to blow the Democrats away I wouldn't get too upset about cash buying politicians.

Or didn't you read about all the private jets flying into to meet with Mitt in Utah last week?


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 61, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
How are you going to do anything in one day? Hmm, could it be via executive order?

He shouldn't. The fight is done, it needs to follow the rules. But funny how the left doesn't play by the rules but Romney would be expected to follow the rules and he hasn't even been elected. I fret not one iota over this though, since Romney is a milquetoast blueblood who lacks the spine to do anything about it anyhow. But that's a rant for a different thread.

But oooooh loogie here!!! We have secret wiretaps now!

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell...ons_in_congressional-215828-1.html

Oh and this would just be gorgeous...arrest Holder.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-holder-with-inherent-contempt-p/

Brilliant idea. Would be a good start.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 62, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
But funny how the left doesn't play by the rules but Romney would be expected to follow the rules and he hasn't even been elected.

It's the cost the conservatives have to pay for wrapping themselves in the flag and pretending to obey the Constitution as much as they pretend to obey the Bible, and in turn criticizing everyone except themselves when they perceive some infraction of the rules.

Live by the rules, die by the rules...

Simple, innit?

Clearly the right breaks the rules as much as the left, if not more IMHO, but the right somehow wants to portray themselves as above that kind of stuff.

See Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMD, "Believe in America", etc.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 63, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 62):
Live by the rules, die by the rules...

Simple, innit?

It should be, yes.

For Executive Privilege, as with seemingly everything the govt does, nothing is consistent, much is arbitrary, and less is constitutional or reasonable.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
But oooooh loogie here!!! We have secret wiretaps now!

And Chairman Darrell Issa has just given any future Administration sufficient reason to deny the guy with a Security Clearance. The guy simply isn't up to the standards for a basic Confidential clearance.

Quoting slider (Reply 61):
Oh and this would just be gorgeous...arrest Holder.
Quoting slider (Reply 61):
Brilliant idea. Would be a good start.

And set a standard that would last 50 years. I had thought that the GOP was wise enough to avoid stupid acts that can be used against them in he future. Guess not.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 65, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 55):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53):
The ATF and all other government agencies are headed by political appointees (i.e. politicians choose them). The current head of the ATF is a lawyer and former advisor of Holder. He is no law enforcement experience (apart from being a prosecutor - but that's not the same thing as being a career cop/FBI/ATF agent). Government agencies don't choose their own leaders.

Correct, but they aren't the ones running the operations.

The only possible exception is J. Edgar Hoover but that was because he had dirt on everybody and basicly blackmailed them to keep his job.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8954 posts, RR: 24
Reply 66, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 58):
Surely that is fair, don't you think?

Fair? No, not at all.

Ah, so you are fully and openly in support of political corruption, I see. Well, you are a Democrat, so I'm not surprised.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 59):
Care to address the hypocrisy of Romney planning to use executive orders after railing against them in the F&F case?

I am not aware of any executive order involved with Fast & Furious. Or are you thinking of executive privilege?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12957 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

I guess I posted before the coffee kicked in. I'm not doing much better today so let's see how this goes...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
Ah, so you are fully and openly in support of political corruption, I see.

I misread the question. I think it's unfair that waivers are being given at all.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 66):
I am not aware of any executive order involved with Fast & Furious.

Brain fart: Executive order was with respect to Dream Act, executive privilege was F&F.

Point being we heard all the outrage about Obama doing these things, yet now we here Romney will be using executive orders his first day in office, sigh...



Inspiration, move me brightly!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2 Fast 2 Furious: Yay Or Nay? posted Sun Jun 8 2003 14:41:52 by UPSfueler
Soldier Won't Deploy: Claims Obama Not President posted Tue Jul 14 2009 20:55:38 by Falcon84
The Fast&the Furious: The Aircraft Version posted Thu Dec 1 2005 11:33:29 by KLMCedric
What Car Does Leti Drive In Fast And Furious posted Tue Feb 3 2004 04:52:06 by Sovietjet
The Fast And The Furious: Questions posted Mon May 19 2003 17:30:49 by Matt D
Fast And The Furious 2? posted Sun Sep 22 2002 03:39:21 by UALrampORD
"The Fast And The Furious" posted Wed Jul 17 2002 13:57:04 by Sudden
Your Chance To Meet Obama And The Working Class posted Fri Jun 15 2012 13:59:53 by Superfly
Bounty Offered On Obama And H Clinton Heads posted Sat Jun 9 2012 19:45:38 by Dreadnought
Astrologers Predict Obama Re-election posted Wed May 30 2012 09:17:16 by bmacleod